Here :-) gwern is at least as good too. Wikipedia's little ways are opaque and scary from the outside.
Simplest way is "references out to here". "The sky[1] is blue.[2][3][4]" Write your stuff, in that dull grey Wikipedia style, and festoon it with blue numbers. Highest-status references you can find (journal articles are ideal, actually famous self-published papers generally OK, blog posts frequently lose unless from the actually famous).
The threat model is "aggressive and persistent idiot armed with three-letter policy abbreviations." Defences are (1) references (2) note anything that might even faintly resemble a conflict of interest to the most bad-faith-assuming idiot on the discussion page (3) occasional superhuman assumption of good faith.
I'd be interested in knowing in detail what your worries were/are. Editor retention and newbie recruitment are BIG concerns at the moment on the Foundation level (though you wouldn't think so looking at how a lot of the English Wikipedia community actually do things).
My email is dgerard@gmail.com if you don't want to talk about it publicly (though I'd love to be able to quietly share your concerns with others).
I have upvoted you for using the word "festoon". Also for writing a good and helpful and topical comment, but mostly for using "festoon".
Hi all,
At the Singularity Institute we're looking for a volunteer with experience making edits to Wikipedia. The quality of some Wikipedia pages related to our subject matter could use improvement, but we would like to consult with someone who has an editing background on the way to go about it.
Please get in touch with me at michael@intelligence.org.
Thank you!